5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Governing Legislation, Policy and Guidelines(7:II)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Governing Legislation, Policy and Guidelines(7:II) (view source)
Revision as of 01:17, 4 August 2017
, 01:17, 4 August 2017no edit summary
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
The ''Workers Compensation Act'' '''[WCA]''' is the legislation which creates and governs the Board. In 2002 and 2003, the WCA was substantially amended and the key transition date is '''June 30, 2002'''. Workers who were injured before or on June 30, 2002 (with a few exceptions), have the former WCA apply to their claims whereas workers who were injured after this date are under the amended or “new” WCA. | The ''Workers Compensation Act'' '''[WCA]''' is the legislation which creates and governs the Board. In 2002 and 2003, the WCA was substantially amended and the key transition date is '''June 30, 2002'''. Workers who were injured before or on June 30, 2002 (with a few exceptions), have the former WCA apply to their claims whereas workers who were injured after this date are under the amended or “new” WCA. | ||
The new WCA revised sections 99 and 250 of the Act to make Board policy binding on all Board decision-makers and appeal bodies (i.e. | The new WCA revised sections 99 and 250 of the Act to make Board policy binding on all Board decision-makers and appeal bodies (i.e. Review Division and WCAT). The courts have since determined that the effect of these provisions is to give Board policy a legal status equivalent to subordinate legislation (see below). | ||
The WCA amendments also changed the appeal structure for Board decisions. | The WCA amendments also changed the appeal structure for Board decisions. Since March 1, 2003, there are two levels of appeal for most Board decisions: | ||
*i. an internal review at the Review Division (RD); and | *i. an internal review at the Review Division (RD); and | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
== D. Arguing Medical Evidence == | == D. Arguing Medical Evidence == | ||
As in any legal arena, at all stages of the Workers’ Compensation process it is vital to support claims with evidence. Often this can be especially challenging when dealing with medical issues for many reasons. These issues require | As in any legal arena, at all stages of the Workers’ Compensation process it is vital to support claims with evidence. Often this can be especially challenging when dealing with medical issues for many reasons. These issues require specialised knowledge, they often do not lend themselves to certainty even for professionals, and most injured workers have limited time and money to spend collecting evidence. Conversely, WCB has salaried Board Medical Advisors (BMA) and WCAT is “presumed to be an expert in all matters over which it has exclusive jurisdiction” (''Fraser Health Authority v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal'', 2014 BCCA 499 (''Fraser Health'')). Nevertheless, WCB and WCAT are not presumed to have medical or scientific expertise and as such they are not permitted to ignore uncontradicted expert advice (''Page v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal)'', 2009 BCSC 493) particularly in light of the “as likely as not” standard. While it may be useful to document subjective claims of injury, pain, and limitations, workers should bring as much objective expert evidence as possible. This may include physiotherapists, massage therapists, chiropractors, and dentists in addition to a family doctor. If necessary and possible, ask to be referred to a specialist. | ||
Also recall that causation does not need to be proved to the level of scientific certainty and that the finder of fact is permitted to make common sense inferences (''Snell v Farrell'', [1990] 2 SCR 311; ''McKnight v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal'', 2012 BCSC 1820). | Also recall that medical diagnosis and medical causation does not need to be proved to the level of scientific certainty and that the finder of fact is permitted to make common sense inferences (''Snell v Farrell'', [1990] 2 SCR 311; ''McKnight v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal'', 2012 BCSC 1820). | ||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}} | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters1-7}} | ||